Use of Opioids for Adults With Pain From Cancer or Cancer Treatment: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidance on the use of opioids to manage pain from cancer or cancer treatment in adults.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature identified systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials of the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in people with cancer, approaches to opioid initiation and titration, and the prevention and management of opioid adverse events. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2010, to February 17, 2022. American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

The evidence base consisted of 31 systematic reviews and 16 randomized controlled trials. Opioids have primarily been evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe cancer pain, and they effectively reduce pain in this population, with well-characterized adverse effects. Evidence was limited for several of the questions of interest, and the Expert Panel relied on consensus for these recommendations or noted that no recommendation could be made at this time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Opioids should be offered to patients with moderate-to-severe pain related to cancer or active cancer treatment unless contraindicated. Opioids should be initiated PRN (as needed) at the lowest possible dose to achieve acceptable analgesia and patient goals, with early assessment and frequent titration. For patients with a substance use disorder, clinicians should collaborate with a palliative care, pain, and/or substance use disorder specialist to determine the optimal approach to pain management. Opioid adverse effects should be monitored, and strategies are provided for prevention and management.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Randomized phase II trial of postoperative adjuvant capecitabine and temozolomide versus observation in high-risk pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: SWOG S2104

TPS515

Background: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETS) account for about 1-2% of all the pancreas tumors for which resection is the only curative intent modality, however, despite surgery, many patients will experience recurrence. Tumor size, positive lymph nodes and higher grade are prognostic factors for recurrence. The U.S. Neuroendocrine Tumor Study Group published a predictive score (Zaidi score, see table) demonstrating that tumors with a score≥6 had a 33% likelihood of recurrence by 24 months. Furthermore, it is known that that patients with metastatic disease who undergo curative intent resection also have a great risk of recurrence. Despite these known risk factors for recurrence, to date, no prospective study exploring the role of adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy has ever been performed in this population. Supported by the E2211 results using capecitabine and temozolomide (CAPTEM) in the metastatic setting, S2104 investigates the role of CAPTEM in the adjuvant setting. Methods: S2104 is a randomized phase II trial designed to evaluate recurrence-free survival (RFS) in participants with resected pNETs randomized on a 2:1 fashion to CAPTEM or observation. Patient are eligible if they had resected well-differentiated grade 2 or 3 (ki-67 up to 55%) pNETS with a Zaidi score of ≥ 3. Patients may have received resection/ablation of liver oligo-metastatic disease (up to 5 liver metastases) at the time of well-differentiated pNET resection. Key eligibility criteria: age ≥18 years, Zubrod performance status of 0-2, adequate organ and marrow function. Stratification factors include 1) Disease status prior to resection (metastatic vs. non-metastatic disease) and 2) Zaidi score (≥ 6 vs. < 6). Participants will be followed with imaging for 5 years. Funding: NIH/NCI/NCTN grants U10CA180888, U10CA180819, U10CA180821, U10CA180868. Clinical trial information: NCT05040360. [Table: see text]

Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) therapy.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of medical oncology, dermatology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, pulmonology, endocrinology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialists, and advocacy experts was convened to update the guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic literature review and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on evidence published from 2017 through 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 175 studies met the eligibility criteria of the systematic review and were pertinent to the development of the recommendations. Because of the paucity of high-quality evidence, recommendations are based on expert consensus.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for specific organ system-based toxicity diagnosis and management are presented. While management varies according to the organ system affected, in general, ICPi therapy should be continued with close monitoring for grade 1 toxicities, except for some neurologic, hematologic, and cardiac toxicities. ICPi therapy may be suspended for most grade 2 toxicities, with consideration of resuming when symptoms revert ≤ grade 1. Corticosteroids may be administered. Grade 3 toxicities generally warrant suspension of ICPis and the initiation of high-dose corticosteroids. Corticosteroids should be tapered over the course of at least 4-6 weeks. Some refractory cases may require other immunosuppressive therapy. In general, permanent discontinuation of ICPis is recommended with grade 4 toxicities, except for endocrinopathies that have been controlled by hormone replacement. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Treated With Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel of medical oncology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialists, and advocacy experts was convened to develop the guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic literature review and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on evidence published from 2017 to 2021.

RESULTS

The systematic review identified 35 eligible publications. Because of the paucity of high-quality evidence, recommendations are based on expert consensus.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The multidisciplinary team issued recommendations to aid in the recognition, workup, evaluation, and management of the most common CAR T-cell-related toxicities, including cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, B-cell aplasia, cytopenias, and infections. Management of short-term toxicities associated with CAR T cells begins with supportive care for most patients, but may require pharmacologic interventions for those without adequate response. Management of patients with prolonged or severe CAR T-cell-associated cytokine release syndrome includes treatment with tocilizumab with or without a corticosteroid. On the basis of the potential for rapid decline, patients with moderate to severe immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome should be managed with corticosteroids and supportive care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Management of Dyspnea in Advanced Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To provide guidance on the clinical management of dyspnea in adult patients with advanced cancer.

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. An Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) systematic review provided the evidence base for nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions to alleviate dyspnea. The review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with a concurrent comparison group published through early May 2020. The ASCO Expert Panel also wished to address dyspnea assessment, management of underlying conditions, and palliative care referrals, and for these questions, an additional systematic review identified RCTs, systematic reviews, and guidelines published through July 2020.

RESULTS

The AHRQ systematic review included 48 RCTs and two retrospective cohort studies. Lung cancer and mesothelioma were the most commonly addressed types of cancer. Nonpharmacologic interventions such as fans provided some relief from breathlessness. Support for pharmacologic interventions was limited. A meta-analysis of specialty breathlessness services reported improvements in distress because of dyspnea.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A hierarchical approach to dyspnea management is recommended, beginning with dyspnea assessment, ascertainment and management of potentially reversible causes, and referral to an interdisciplinary palliative care team. Nonpharmacologic interventions that may be offered to relieve dyspnea include airflow interventions (eg, a fan directed at the cheek), standard supplemental oxygen for patients with hypoxemia, and other psychoeducational, self-management, or complementary approaches. For patients who derive inadequate relief from nonpharmacologic interventions, systemic opioids should be offered. Other pharmacologic interventions, such as corticosteroids and benzodiazepines, are also discussed. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines .

Palliative Care in the Global Setting: ASCO Resource-Stratified Practice Guideline

Purpose

The purpose of this new resource-stratified guideline is to provide expert guidance to clinicians and policymakers on implementing palliative care of patients with cancer and their caregivers in resource-constrained settings and is intended to complement the Integration of Palliative Care Into Standard Oncology Care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update of 2016.

Methods

ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of experts in medical oncology, family medicine, radiation oncology, hematology/oncology, palliative and/or hospice care, pain and/or symptom management, patient advocacy, public health, and health economics. Guideline development involved a systematic literature review, a modified ADAPTE process, and a formal consensus-based process with the Expert Panel and additional experts (consensus ratings group).

Results

The systematic review included 48 full-text publications regarding palliative care in resource-constrained settings, along with cost-effectiveness analyses; the evidence for many clinical questions was limited. These provided indirect evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of ≥ 75% (by consensus ratings group including Expert Panel).

Recommendations

The recommendations help define the models of care, staffing requirements, and roles and training needs of team members in a variety of resource settings for palliative care. Recommendations also outline the standards for provision of psychosocial support, spiritual care, and opioid analgesics, which can be particularly challenging and often overlooked in resource-constrained settings. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines.

It is the view of ASCO that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guideline is intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.

Effective stakeholder engagement: design and implementation of a clinical trial (SWOG S1415CD) to improve cancer care

Background

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has engaged an External Stakeholder Advisory Group (ESAG) in the planning and implementation of the TrACER Study (S1415CD), a five-year pragmatic clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of a guideline-based colony stimulating factor standing order intervention. The trial is being conducted by SWOG through the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program in 45 clinics. The ESAG includes ten patient partners, two payers, two pharmacists, two guideline experts, four providers and one medical ethicist. This manuscript describes the ESAG’s role and impact on the trial.

Methods

During early trial development, the research team assembled the ESAG to inform plans for each phase of the trial. ESAG members provide feedback and engage in problem solving to improve trial implementation. Each year, members participate in one in-person meeting, web conferences and targeted email discussion. Additionally, they complete a survey that assesses their satisfaction with communication and collaboration. The research team collected and reviewed stakeholder input from 2014 to 2018 for impact on the trial.

Results

The ESAG has informed trial design, implementation and dissemination planning. The group advised the trial’s endpoints, regimen list and development of cohort and usual care arms. Based on ESAG input, the research team enhanced patient surveys and added pharmacy-related questions to the component application to assess order entry systems. ESAG patient partners collaborated with the research team to develop a patient brochure and study summary for clinic staff. In addition to identifying recruitment strategies and patient-oriented platforms for publicly sharing results, ESAG members participated as co-authors on this manuscript and a conference poster presentation highlighting stakeholder influence on the trial. The annual satisfaction survey results suggest that ESAG members were satisfied with the methods, frequency and target areas of their engagement in the trial during project years 1–3.

Conclusions

Diverse stakeholder engagement has been essential in optimizing the design, implementation and planned dissemination of the TrACER Study. The lessons described in the manuscript may assist others to effectively partner with stakeholders on clinical research.

The influence of patient engagement on the design and implementation of a clinical trial to improve cancer care delivery

223

Background: We have engaged 10 patient partners in the development and implementation of S1415CD, a five-year pragmatic clinical trial currently in year 3 assessing the effectiveness of a guideline-based colony stimulating factor standing order intervention (NCT02728596). Patient partners serve as part of a 21-person External Stakeholder Advisory Group (ESAG), which also includes providers, payers and guidelines experts. This abstract explores the influence of patient partners on the design, tools and implementation of S1415CD Methods: Patient partners advise the study team on protocol development, patient-facing materials and implementation challenges over four teleconferences each year, annual in-person meetings and targeted email communication. All patient partner input from 2014-2017 was tracked, collected and reviewed for impact on the trial. Results: Input from patient partners led to the refinement of the study’s patient-reported outcome (PRO) survey questions, the creation of a highly utilized patient brochure, and the formation of talking points for clinic staff to help explain the study. Patient partners in conjunction with high performing sites helped develop strategies for sites with lower patient accrual to optimize the approach and consent of study participants. Conclusions: The sustained engagement of patient partners in S1415CD ensured patient-centeredness in trial design and guided the development of PRO surveys and relevant, high quality patient-facing materials. Drawing on experiential knowledge and insights from their roles as caregivers and advocates, patient partners provided valuable feedback that influenced patient approach and engagement in the study. Embedding patient partners in the research continuum has catalyzed critical discussions and problem solving among the patient partners and study team, which has led to patient-centered solutions to study challenges. Clinical trial information: NCT02728596.

Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

Purpose To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) therapy. Methods A multidisciplinary, multi-organizational panel of experts in medical oncology, dermatology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, pulmonology, endocrinology, urology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialist, and advocacy was convened to develop the clinical practice guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic review of the literature and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and case series published from 2000 through 2017. Results The systematic review identified 204 eligible publications. Much of the evidence consisted of systematic reviews of observational data, consensus guidelines, case series, and case reports. Due to the paucity of high-quality evidence on management of immune-related adverse events, recommendations are based on expert consensus. Recommendations Recommendations for specific organ system-based toxicity diagnosis and management are presented. While management varies according to organ system affected, in general, ICPi therapy should be continued with close monitoring for grade 1 toxicities, with the exception of some neurologic, hematologic, and cardiac toxicities. ICPi therapy may be suspended for most grade 2 toxicities, with consideration of resuming when symptoms revert to grade 1 or less. Corticosteroids may be administered. Grade 3 toxicities generally warrant suspension of ICPis and the initiation of high-dose corticosteroids (prednisone 1 to 2 mg/kg/d or methylprednisolone 1 to 2 mg/kg/d). Corticosteroids should be tapered over the course of at least 4 to 6 weeks. Some refractory cases may require infliximab or other immunosuppressive therapy. In general, permanent discontinuation of ICPis is recommended with grade 4 toxicities, with the exception of endocrinopathies that have been controlled by hormone replacement. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events in Patients Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline

Purpose To increase awareness, outline strategies, and offer guidance on the recommended management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICPi) therapy. Methods A multidisciplinary, multi-organizational panel of experts in medical oncology, dermatology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, pulmonology, endocrinology, urology, neurology, hematology, emergency medicine, nursing, trialist, and advocacy was convened to develop the clinical practice guideline. Guideline development involved a systematic review of the literature and an informal consensus process. The systematic review focused on guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and case series published from 2000 through 2017. Results The systematic review identified 204 eligible publications. Much of the evidence consisted of systematic reviews of observational data, consensus guidelines, case series, and case reports. Due to the paucity of high-quality evidence on management of immune-related adverse events, recommendations are based on expert consensus. Recommendations Recommendations for specific organ system-based toxicity diagnosis and management are presented. While management varies according to organ system affected, in general, ICPi therapy should be continued with close monitoring for grade 1 toxicities, with the exception of some neurologic, hematologic, and cardiac toxicities. ICPi therapy may be suspended for most grade 2 toxicities, with consideration of resuming when symptoms revert to grade 1 or less. Corticosteroids may be administered. Grade 3 toxicities generally warrant suspension of ICPis and the initiation of high-dose corticosteroids (prednisone 1 to 2 mg/kg/d or methylprednisolone 1 to 2 mg/kg/d). Corticosteroids should be tapered over the course of at least 4 to 6 weeks. Some refractory cases may require infliximab or other immunosuppressive therapy. In general, permanent discontinuation of ICPis is recommended with grade 4 toxicities, with the exception of endocrinopathies that have been controlled by hormone replacement. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Patient-Clinician Communication: American Society of Clinical Oncology Consensus Guideline

Purpose To provide guidance to oncology clinicians on how to use effective communication to optimize the patient-clinician relationship, patient and clinician well-being, and family well-being. Methods ASCO convened a multidisciplinary panel of medical oncology, psychiatry, nursing, hospice and palliative medicine, communication skills, health disparities, and advocacy experts to produce recommendations. Guideline development involved a systematic review of the literature and a formal consensus process. The systematic review focused on guidelines, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2006 through October 1, 2016. Results The systematic review included 47 publications. With the exception of clinician training in communication skills, evidence for many of the clinical questions was limited. Draft recommendations underwent two rounds of consensus voting before being finalized. Recommendations In addition to providing guidance regarding core communication skills and tasks that apply across the continuum of cancer care, recommendations address specific topics, such as discussion of goals of care and prognosis, treatment selection, end-of-life care, facilitating family involvement in care, and clinician training in communication skills. Recommendations are accompanied by suggested strategies for implementation. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Achieving Coordinated Care for Patients With Complex Cases of Cancer: A Multiteam System Approach

Patients with cancer with multiple chronic conditions pose a unique challenge to how primary care and specialty care teams provide well-coordinated, patient-centered care. Effectiveness of these care teams in providing optimal health care depends on the extent to which they coordinate their goals and knowledge as components of a multiteam system (MTS). This article outlines challenges of care coordination in the context of an MTS, illustrated through the care experience of "Mr Fuentes," a patient in the Dallas County integrated safety-net system, Parkland. As a continuing patient with chronic illnesses, the patient being discussed is managed through one of the Parkland community-oriented primary care clinics. However, a cancer diagnosis triggered an additional need for augmented coordination between his different provider teams. Further research and practice should investigate the relationships of MTS coordination for shared care management, transfer to and from specialty care, treatment compliance, barriers to care, and health outcomes of chronic comorbid conditions, as well as cancer control and surveillance.

Audit of the use of packed red blood cells in association with seven common surgical procedures

The risks and costs associated with the transfusion of blood and its components have led to increasing demands for evidence of the appropriate use of blood components. We have examined the use of packed red blood cells (PRBC) in association with seven common, surgical procedures performed in 1987 and 1988 to establish patterns of use. The information has formed the basis for surgical blood order schedules and autologous donation targets for these procedures. It has also been used to determine appropriate audit 'triggers' and the results of an audit using these 'triggers' are reported.